Ivan De Martino1, Rocco D'Apolito2, Allina A Nocon2, Thomas P Sculco2, Peter K Sculco2, Mathias P Bostrom2. 1. Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. demartinoi@hss.edu. 2. Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29-90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2-10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81-261). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR. RESULTS: A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.
PURPOSE: Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29-90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2-10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81-261). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR. RESULTS: A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone loss; Dislocation; Megaprosthesis; Proximal femoral replacement; Revision total hip arthroplasty
Authors: C Anderson Engh; Thomas J Ellis; Lisa M Koralewicz; James P McAuley; Charles A Engh Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jeffrey J Barry; Zachary Thielen; David C Sing; Paul H Yi; Erik N Hansen; Michael Ries Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jose A Rodriguez; Robert Fada; Steven B Murphy; Vijay J Rasquinha; Chitranjan S Ranawat Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Eric L Smith; Akash Shah; Sung Jun Son; Ruijia Niu; Carl T Talmo; Ayesha Abdeen; Muzna Ali; John Pinski; Matthew Gordon; Santiago Lozano-Calderon; Hany S Bedair Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2020-06-29
Authors: Fabio Mancino; Vincenzo Di Matteo; Fabrizio Mocini; Giorgio Cacciola; Giuseppe Malerba; Carlo Perisano; Ivan De Martino Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Alberto Di Martino; Davide Pederiva; Barbara Bordini; Gabriele Di Carlo; Alessandro Panciera; Giuseppe Geraci; Niccolò Stefanini; Cesare Faldini Journal: J Orthop Traumatol Date: 2022-03-29
Authors: Kevin Döring; Klemens Vertesich; Luca Martelanz; Kevin Staats; Christoph Böhler; Christian Hipfl; Reinhard Windhager; Stephan Puchner Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.075